United Way of Greater Union County % Julienne Cherry

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
221904427
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Rahway, NJ, USA
Phone
9083537171
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,666,297
Expenses
$4,346,797
Assets
$4,462,159
Liabilities
$1,591,950

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIENNE CHERRY (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JULIENNE CHERRY (CEO): $190,399 total reported compensation
  • JUANITA AYALA VARGAS (CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER): $116,860 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of united way greater union county is to improve lives and build strong communities by uniting individuals and organizations with the will, passion, expertise, and resources needed to solve problems.

What it reported doing in 2024

Family strengthening ensures that everyone in union county has the necessary opportunities, relationships and networks to support the success of their family. We focus on family strengthening by advancing education, income and health throughout one's journey from birth to adulthood. The union county family strengthening network (ucfsn) is a unique public private partnership between united way of greater union county, business, government schools, faith based and non profit organizations and foundations. Partners work to break down barriers for families, create opportunities to ensure that every child succeeds in life.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 84% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, 34% for grants, and 1% for affiliated organizations.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 93%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $35.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 60.6%; rating input score 61; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.8%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.03; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87% of revenue deployed · 93% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $190K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 15 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.